Temporal Motion
Essay Preview: Temporal Motion
Report this essay
It is often said that Time seems to us to move, to pass, to crawl, and even to fly; that is, Time seems to be in motion. This sensation of the movement of Time is quite universal in human experience. It seems to us that either, Time is moving around/past us or that we are moving through time. Additionally, Time seems to have only one dimension, or direction, which depends on whether, we are moving through time, or if time is moving around us; if the former is true then, time moves futureward and if the latter is true, then time moves pastward. This sensation is appropriately illustrated by Peter Van Inwagen in his writings on temporality. “Many have found it natural to picture time as a river flowing futureward, and to picture us, the inhabitants of time, as drifting downstream, drifting with the current of the river of time, in a boat called the present…. It is equally natural for us to picture ourselves as standing on an island called the present in a river that flows not futureward but pastwardвЂ¦Ð²Ð‚Ñœ From this, we also see that accompanying the concept of temporal motion is the concept of the present. The present, it seems, is a point in time which we constantly occupy, an experience from which we can not escape. To put it another way, as John Ellis McTaggart did, “We perceive events in time as being present, and those are the only events which we perceive directly.” The concept of the present then, is just as essential to the experience of temporal motion as the concept of Time. Although both of these concepts are essential to temporal motion, they are also the source, particularly their relationship to one another, of the criticisms that dismiss temporal motion as a subjective experience, an illusion that does not exist in reality. What then, is the nature of temporal motion? Is temporal motion real; that is, can temporal motion ultimately exist independently of us experiencing it, or is the seeming motion of time an illusion, merely just a product of human consciousness?
The initial dilemma that we face when dealing with the conundrum of temporal motion seems almost too obvious, that is, it involves movement; the movement of either the present, or of Time, each in relation to the other. The problem is that, if Time or the present are moving, then they must be moving at some rate or speed, but what could that be; sixty seconds per minute perhaps? Van Inwagen proposes that this is impossible by saying, “”Sixty seconds per minute” is not an answer to the question, for sixty seconds is one minute, and—if x is not 0—x/x is always equal to 1 (and “per” is simply a special way of writing a division sign). And “1” is not, and cannot ever be, an answer to the question of the form, “How fast is such-and-such moving?”—no matter what “such-and-such” may be.” However, is this really impossible if “such-and-such” is Time?
If Time really exists, then would it not be ultimate, something in and of itself, independent from and yet simultaneously encompassing, space and all that exists within space? It seems almost insulting to try and impose any spatial concept of rate or speed on something which is independent from space. It is worth while to note that, the system we use to “measure the passage of time” (sixty seconds in a minute, sixty minutes in an hour, twenty-four hours in a day, etc.) is in fact merely a product of the earths spatial relation to the sun,. So if Time cannot be measured by anything pertaining to space, the only option left would be to measure it by some system which only pertains to Time. Unfortunately, as far as I am aware of, such a system does not exist. Hopefully, a system for describing time in relation to itself with be discovered or invented, but until that is done, it seems one would have to say that Time moves at the speed of Time. At best, this answer would make us very anxious, as the statement is quite ambiguous, as it does not conform to any of the ways in which we are accustomed to conceiving of concepts. However, the next problem we encounter when dealing with temporal motion is not so ambiguous.
For something to move, not only must there be something moving, but there must also be something else that the something in question is moving through/past. The concepts “the present” and “Time” are essential to temporal motion, and so, as I have said, either the present moves through Time, or Time moves through the present. So it seems that, if either one of these concepts does not exist beyond our experience, then temporal motion is an illusion of our minds. To explore this problem, let us first contemplate if the present really does exist outside of human experience.
In his writings on temporality, Van Inwagen references Bertrand Russell, the first philosopher to take on the challenge of the existence of the present, for a possible solution to the question of weather the present really exists. “According to Lord Russell’s theory of time, there is no moment that moves through time; and neither is there a property or feature or characteristic called “being the present moment” that successively belong to different moments.” However, Russell’s reasons for stating this seem quite inadequate, as he further states that, “If we grant the existence of the property “being the present moment” we lay ourselves open to all sorts of puzzles (as we have seen), and we had therefore better not suppose that that property exists if we can avoid doing so.” This statement, not only makes me uncomfortable, it seems to me utterly false, especially if we take McTaggart’s aforementioned definition of the present as true.
It would not be easily denied that there are events that we perceive of directly, and so it would not be denied that these perceptions are of something outside of our consciousness, for, that is the very nature of perception. To not be able to perceive of events outside one’s consciousness is to not be able to think, since, our perceptions/experiences are what necessarily make up our thoughts. Therefore, I believe that the present does necessarily exist, because, we do directly perceive events, and the present is those events of which we perceive